Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 100prostitute can evolve into the kind of exploitative and abusive conduct associatedwith the worst aspects of pimping. This phenomenon arises from the nature ofprostitution itself. Prostitutes live on the fringes of society. They are isolated andtherefore uniquely vulnerable to potential exploitation by others.[245] The Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which a blanketprohibition can escape a charge of unconstitutional overbreadth. The first is if anarrower prohibition will be ineffective because the class of affected personscannot be identified in advance: Clay, at para. 40. The second is if there is asignificant risk to public safety in the event of misuse or misconduct: Clay, atpara. 40; Cochrane, at para. 34. In our view, neither circumstance is presenthere.[246] No case has been made out for a blanket prohibition on the second basis,danger to the public at large. The objectives of the living on the avails provisionhave not been cast in terms of public protection; rather the legislation is morenarrowly focused on protecting prostitutes from exploitation. As we have said,this is a group that is uniquely vulnerable because of the nature of prostitutionitself and the legislative framework that surrounds most prostitution-relatedactivities. The risk of harm from pimping accrues principally to the prostitute, notthe general public.